Ross v Costigan

The case of Ross v Costigan was heard in the Federal Court of Australia, where the applicants sought an order of review concerning decisions made by the Royal Commissioner during a Royal Commission into the conduct of the Federated Ship and Painters and Dockers Union. The applicants, including Mr. Heap, sought to challenge the Royal Commissioner's decisions to issue summonses and inquire into matters that the applicants argued were not relevant to the terms of reference of the Royal Commission. The central issue in the case was whether the Royal Commissioner's decisions were administrative in nature, made under an enactment, and whether the terms of reference of the Royal Commission exceeded the constitutional power of the Commonwealth.

The court considered whether the Royal Commissioner's decisions to issue summonses and inquire into certain matters were administrative decisions within the meaning of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977. The applicants argued that the Royal Commissioner's decisions were not made under an enactment and were therefore not subject to judicial review. The court rejected this argument, holding that the Royal Commissioner's decisions were indeed made under an enactment, specifically the Commonwealth Letters Patent establishing the Royal Commission. The court also found that the decisions were administrative in nature and engaged in or proposed to be engaged in for the purpose of making such a decision. Finally, the court considered whether the terms of reference of the Royal Commission exceeded the constitutional power of the Commonwealth. The court held that the terms of reference were valid and within the constitutional power of the Commonwealth.

The court dismissed the application for interlocutory relief, finding that the applicants had not made out a case for judicial review of the Royal Commissioner's decisions. The court held that the Royal Commissioner's decisions were valid and within the scope of the terms of reference of the Royal Commission. The court also held that the applicants had not demonstrated that they were likely to succeed in their application for judicial review. The applicants were ordered to pay the costs of the respondent.